Some parents complain that their children are denied special education services because of a new policy called Response To Intervention, which tries to keep children from developing learning disabilities. The goal is to prevent the need for a costly special education diagnosis. From the Washington Post:
Third-grader Tylor Goshorn sometimes writes letters or numbers backward. She has trouble with simple directions and lags a year behind her class in reading. Her parents suspect that she might have a learning disability and that she would be better served by smaller classes and more intensive instruction from special education.
But the Loudoun County school system has balked at testing Tylor for a possible disability. Instead, the schools have arranged for a reading specialist for the 9-year-old, a special computer program for math, even a seat in the front of her classroom.
In 1977, less than 2 percent of children were considered learning disabled; that’s risen to 6 percent.
Many educators say learning disabilities have been over-diagnosed and are seeking ways to address learning difficulties in mainstream classrooms, rather than addressing them through special education for as much as twice the cost. Loudoun officials estimate their cost per pupil in special education is $22,000 a year, compared with $12,000 for most students.
The percentage of students in special education has dropped significantly in districts that use RTI.
Alexander Russo asks if RTI is another fad.
I’ve visited several schools recently that work to identify developmental issues in kindergarten so children don’t end up in special education. I think it makes a lot of sense.
It’s great to identify kids with LD’s early. The problem is the “cure” that doesn’t really remediate the problem(s). The whole reason I’m in my 3rd year of homeschooling my two son’s, 9 and 11 years old, is becasue they were both identified as potential LD, in kindergarten and 2nd grade, respectively. I could never figure out what these programs were intended to accomplish. Reading Recovery for my 2nd grader was a complete waste of time. At the end of last year they were both tested using the IOWA at or above grade level in all subjects, with the exception of spelling. The special ed departments are filled with the same kind of misconceptions about learning and teaching that are found in the regular classrooms. Perhaps one of the reason many more children are identified as LD is because the classroom is so significantly less structured and the teaching less specific and measureable. Constructativist teaching philosphy is more damaging to the less able.
So much more heat than light. Question is not whether learning disabilities can be prevented, but whether those who are/might be labelled (according to a legal definition)as learning disabled are better served by a gradual increase of services administered without the necessity of a label, or if it is better to keep doing what doesn’t work until a discernable/measureable gap (between that student and the rest of the students) exists and then deliver services. I personally don’t see any advantage to the latter.
Often the LD kids are placed with kids that have behavorial problems, and the entire special ed class then has to geared towards dealing with the behavior issues before they can even begin on the teaching. So the teachers receive more training in behavior management than training in the best teaching methodologies that have been shown to work with the particular leaning disabilities.
This is the fallout of heterogenous classrooms… those who traditionally followed the lower level of classes are expected to succeed in the general level with some form of assistance. Of course, as Therese pointed out, those low academic achievers are now thrown in with other students who have behavioral or serious cognitive problems, placing more stress on the special education departments.
My son has been in a regular classroom for 4th grade, but needs the support of 3 aides that happen to be in the classroom to succeed. He really needs a special ed math teacher who can do the repetition he needs to retain his math facts, rather than just missing class to go to the resource teacher where she helps with his math homework. Luckily, we will be able to mix the special day class for math with the regular classroom for 5th grade - the special day class teacher is supposed to be outstanding and has the training he’ll need. But I worry about middle school.
Therese–I believe a “special ed math teacher” is a contradiction in terms. Teachers with special ed certifications are among those least likely to have any educational background in mathematics. This doesn’t say that someone might not be assigned. My son’s IEP called for special one-on-one tutoring in math. Turns out that instead of getting worksheets in the special ed room, he got them with two other students (studying totally other things) with an aide in a closet. This was in middle school. If you can create a groundswell, I would recommend trying to get the district to have an “inclusion class” of students with and without disabilities team taught by a math teacher and a special education teacher. Best for all (the students) involved.
Margo/Mom, Regarding your first post, I did understand the discussion regarding how services are offered initially. I disagree that the question doesn’t lead to whether LD’s can be prevented. In my experience if aggressive, effective services are provided much of the “gap” never develops. The most discouraging attitude I’ve encountered, both in teachers and partents, is the pre-emptive acceptence of failure.
Therese,
Margo is right. You may get a good special ed math teacher, but that is only because you got lucky. In general, I have found teachers teaching special ed math using a patchwork of things with little coherence.
Presently, I’m the mother of a special ed high-schooler, but I went through all of what you’re going through. Do not stop advocating when your child gets to the middle school. Looks can be deceiving when it comes to quality teaching for LD/low IQ kids. There’s also the problem of low expectations, lower than need be.
The problem with the middle school is that you can have your passive LD child thrown in with behavioral students and it can be a bad mix. Our school finally got an autism class, but before that there were severly autistic kids in constant motion adding to the chaos.
Also, in middle school, the aides are sometimes left to teach basic principles when the main teacher is distracted (or in one of the numerous IEP meetings). The aide normally does not hold a college degree.
The smartest thing I did was to buy a Saxon homeschooling package that matched where I thought his level truly was. I religiously afterschooled him (3-4 times a week, 15 min. to 45 min. a sitting) for two years straight. I brought his math level up two years.
He still struggles, that won’t change, but you can do a lot to offset bad schooling. Don’t wait for them to tell you to do it, that would be admitting there’s a problem.
Sorry to get OT, but I thought is was important.
Stacy–I don’t disagree that early intervention gets kids back on track and may prevent the apprearance of gaps. I just don’t know for sure that this means that a “learning disability” has been prevented–or if one never really existed in the first place. The problem with tieing services to legal definitions (the pre-RtI model) is that we create legal definitions rather than clinical ones. But I think we are in agreement about the value of RtI in terms of improving outcomes for all kids–differently abled or differently labelled.
I don’t know enough about RTI to assess it. Certainly it sounds like a good idea to prevent students from falling behind, rather than waiting until they do fall behind and then remediating.
But the answer to the title of the post is no, as of now learning disabilities can’t be prevented. All the evidence suggests that people are born dyslexic, or with ADHD, or with various other learning problems. Intervention can help dyslexics learn to read, but there’s no cure. Meds and behavior treatments can help ADHD people learn to function, but they’ll still have ADHD. The same is true for other learning disabilities.
Mitigating the effects of a disability is not the same as curing it. I wear glasses, but I’m still nearsighted.
Joanne, as the Cardinal has indicated, you are confounding two separate things: “learning disabilities” and “special education”. Getting kids out of special education is not the same thing as “preventing learning disabilities”.
With early, intensive remediation, those with innate learning challenges can learn to perform adequately in the classroom, possibly with accommodations and other support. However, the underlying issue is still there. I think the Cardinal’s example of his vision and eyeglasses is excellent.
Another would be my college-aged, well-remediated-but-still-dyslexic student. Yes she reads above grade level, but her residual difficulties with RAN and working memory means that her comprehension goes down as the reading rate goes up.
RTI: I’m not holding my breath. I believe that most classroom teachers lack the training to supply intensive, effective remediation of (for example) dyslexia.
Learning disabilities can’t be prevented because we really don’t know how they come about. You can go to a pediatric neurologist and even they can’t tell you why your child has an LD. Was is a developmental problem during the nine months in the womb? Was it during the birth, i.e., lack of oxygen? Is it hereditary? Is it some rare syndrome? What?
So, I question how you “develop” a learning disability.
If a kid is in special ed because of something he “developed” at his school, he doesn’t have a learning disability. However, the school might have a teaching disability.
The third grader in question may not have an LD and questioning that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think the idea of intervention is excellent, but “preventing learning disabilities” might be over-reaching and could bring false hope to the parents of children with real LDs.
Susan:
I would still hold that the definition of learning disability remains a legal one (for the purpose of determining eligibility for services) rather than a clinical one–which is one of the things that makes understanding causes so elusive (and learning disability–as opposed to deafness/blindness, various speech pathologies, or named disorders–is really something of a catchall). I do like your suggestion of a teaching disability. Although the law, in defining learning disability, does exclude failures to learn that spring from failures to teach–there is seldom any formal screening for the adequacy of teaching. This MAY feed the hyper-identification of kids in some schools. RtI provides some structure around distinguishing between kids who learn, but in a different way, and those who may have a definable and persistent pathology.